Tag Archives: President Obama

On May 22, 2011, President Obama followed up his controversial May 19 speech on the Middle East and Palestinian/Israel conflict with an address to the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Some political pundits assert that he backed down from previous assertions concerning Israel’s boundaries made in his May 19 speech on the Middle East. Though charming and conciliatory in tone when speaking to the 10,000 pro-Israel AIPAC delegates, as I read his speech I cannot agree with those pundits. As far as I can see, he did not back down or change his central assertions that Israel must fully withdraw its military from Judea and Samaria and that Israel must agree to establishing its new borders along pre-1967 borders.

He states:

…no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict …

That doesn’t sound like backing down to me. That sounds like a defense or justification for those assertions.

Obama’s Justifications Restated

He also restated three reasons/justifications (and added a fourth and very disturbing new justification) for his controversial initiative and push for indefensible pre-1967 borders as a pre-condition for peace. He continues:

First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder-without peace-to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state. Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

However, it is his fourth and disturbing new justification that really caught my attention.

In his words:

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is impatience with the peace process — or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world. …But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations — will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab states, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success.

Translation: In other words, though the US is trying hard to stand with you, Israel, you now have to satisfy and negotiate with not only the Palestinians and bordering Arab states but also an alienated and pro-Palestinian “international community”. Israel — can’t you see? The whole world is against you. The Palestinians are unilaterally angling to obtain official statehood status at the UN. They will get it. That would be a disaster for you. I’m just trying to head off that catastrophe. Your only chance is to follow my strategy whether you like it or not. Help me help you!

I believe the President is also inferring that he can’t hold off Arab and international aspirations forever. Though he professes his support of Israel his support was very uncertain in the Gaza Flotilla incident last May. Only at the last second did he veto an extremely anti-Israel resolution by the UN Security Council.

All of this to say that President Obama’s intentions towards Israel , at the very least, remain very uncertain and unclear.

Remember!

Watch very closely what a leader does–not what he says–to know his true intentions.

God’s promise to Israel in the latter days:

If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me; whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you. (Isaiah 54: 14)

In a continuation of the trajectory supporting Palestinian/Moslem aspirations for statehood at the expense of Israel’s security and some might argue survival, President Obama proclaimed to the world that he expects Israel to return to pre-1967 boundaries. Robert Satloff, writing for the International Jerusalem Post explains,

He is the first sitting US President to say that the boundaries should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps”. The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of US policy based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has always interpreted calls for an Israeli withdrawal to a secure and recognized border as not synonymous with the pre-1967 borders.

Likud MK, Danny Danon, further explains,

Barack Hussein Obama adopted Yasser Arafat’s staged plan for Israel’s destruction, and he is trying to force it on our Prime Minister…All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders without resolving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: “Tell Obama to forget about it.”

Israeli Prime Minister…

…Benyamin Netanyahu, quickly responded to Obama’s new position on Israel’s boundaries by saying that signing such an agreement would leave Israel in an indefensible military position and threaten the survival of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu further asserts,

The Palestinians, and not only the US, must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people…and expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004 that received wide support in both houses of Congress.

The Jerusalem Post also reports that….

… the President Bush letter to PM Ariel Sharon (in 2004) “did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and that it recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground–a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that it would hold on to the large settlement blocs.

Netanyahu goes on to say,

The Bush commitments deal with Israel not being asked to withdraw to pre-1967 lines, which are not defensible, and which place large population centers in Judea and Samaria outside of these borders.

Netanyahu also asserted that the Bush letter made clear that Palestinian refugees would be absorbed in a future Palestinian State. (Jerusalem Post)

So where is this headed?

As PM Netanyahu flies to the US to meet with President Obama and speak to both houses of Congress, there is no question in my mind that the current US administration is continuing to set a course that will further alienate the US from its close alliance with Israel. Israel has no choice but to reject the President’s new formulations for peace which can only further strain and isolate Israel from its primary ally, the USA.

I would remind this government of the God’s words from Isaiah 54:14 in which He delivers a clear promise to Israel in the prophetic period called “latter days”. God promises:

If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me. Whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you…and you shall refute every tongue that rises up in judgment against you. Isaiah 54: 14-15

Continue to pray for both the US and Israel. Specifically that our leaders will forsake the path of antagonism with Israel and continue to be the support we have been for the past 50 years. A word to the wise…

As I parsed through the part of President Obama’s speech to the UN that focused on Israel and the Palestinians, I thought it was appropriate to highlight the following:

1. President Obama continues to try to position himself as a neutral and fair mediator rather than Israel’s ally with the following words,

“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

To casually characterize the thousands of Palestinian/Hamas rockets that were launched into Israeli cities and their civilian populations as “incitement” is outrageous. Incitement is a minimizing understatement. These were acts of war and no nation would put up with it, including the US. Obama then turns on Israel in specific and in my view harsh terms and states;

“And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

So let me get this straight.

Thousands of Palestinian rockets launched into civilian populations is merely “incitement” (aggravating) while Israeli settlements are “illegitimate” thus implying Israel is pursuing a policy that is illegal by international law and thus criminal. In my view, “incitement” is a mild rebuke and the “illegitimate settlements” constitute a harsh indictment of Israel.

2. He states that the second pillar of his speech is the pursuit of world peace.

In the President’s view, one of the keys to world peace (which he so badly desires to be the inspiration for) is the resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli crisis. In Obama’s view, the way to resolve the Middle East conflict is to divide Israel into two nations, ie the two state solution. In his own words…

“The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

So I guess Mr. Obama believes the Palestinian assertion that Israel’s dominance of Holy Land taken in wars the Arabs started and lost is “occupation” and not the legitimate spoil of war. Compare that to the way the US forcefully appropriated so much land from the Native Americans Indians. A little hypocritical wouldn’t you say? Are we “occupying” Indian lands?

3. He accuses Israel (in front of an increasingly hostile world) of not respecting legitimate Palestinian claims and rights.

“The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of Palestinians”.

Israel has been a close ally to the United States for 50 years. This statement amounts to a betrayal of that relationship. Even if he believes this statement it is wrong to expose little Israel to worldwide condemnation when she is already unfairly reviled by so many nations in the UN. Shame!

Conclusion

Judging by what Obama is saying in this speech coupled with his Cairo speech, Obama continues to pursue a strategy that puts the onus for the Middle East crisis politely but clearly on the doorstep of Israel.

“First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.”

These are the words defining President Obama’s agenda concerning nuclear weapons not just for the US but also the world. He goes on to say that he believes that all nations should have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy but not to use nuclear weapons.

True to his globalist ideology, he also asserts that the UN and its nuclear agency the IAEA, should have more authority and that all nations should have to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and be forced to live up to it.

He says,

“All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which the IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nations’ demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure…The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

Sounds good…but isn’t the US being hypocritical?

In all fairness how can the US insist on non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons when the US has more nukes than any other nation. President Obama knows this, so he is determined to lead by example and reduce our nuclear capabilities, unilaterally if necessary, to demonstrate his sincerity. In other words he will try to convince the world that he/the US means business and that Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc. should do the same.

Why this is dangerous for Israel?

Our Arab/Moslem brothers know that these are not empty words and have seized on a new strategy to weaken Israel. They have begun to confront Obama with an argument that goes like this,

We will stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons on the condition that Israel is forced to reveal the true extent of her nuclear arsenal, destroy her nuclear weapons, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and agree to IAEA inspections.

If they can pursuade the US President to accomplish Israel’s nuclear disarmament then they would have succeeded in weakening the Jewish state to such an extent as to make Israel a very tempting target for an all out conventional war where the numbers are clearly in the Arab nations favor.

If they can’t achieve this then at least they can force a confrontation with the US and hopefully damage Israel’s relationship with the US thus further isolating Israel within the world community.

To the surrounding Arab/Moslem nations, Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal acts as a serious deterrent. They know that Israel could very possibly destroy them if she felt that her national sovereignty was threatened.

What if Israel were to say no to President Obama’s strategy?

Already President Obama has pressured Israel in this direction and Israel has resisted him as nicely as possible. If Israel rejects Obama’s instruction to comply with his nuclear weapons agenda (which he thinks is in Israel’s and the world’s best interest) he could begin pressuring Israel by cutting military aid and/or not vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions amongst other measures.

In others words President Obama may see Israel as an obstacle to peace. If he could only get Israel to comply with his nuclear agenda, the Arab/Moslem world would then feel more safe and be forced to acknowledge that his path to peace is the one to take.

Surely Israel can understand this…he thinks.

And if they can’t, then the US will just have to assume the role of “tough love” administrator and force Israel to do what the President knows is best for her, the Arabs, the US, the world… and himself.

What does Israel understand?

Israel understands that she lives in a sea of hostile Arab and Moslem nations who have a stated goal of destroying this tiny Jewish state.

What Israel understands is that she wants to survive and giving up her nuclear weapons in the current hostile environment is inviting a national disaster.

What Israel understands is that she cannot – must not – give in to US pressure on this matter.

The next blog will take a look at what he had to say in his UN speech to the world about the Palestinian/Israel crisis.

It has been very interesting to watch the downward spiral of the Obama Presidency after his very public and celebrated Cairo speech to the Moslem world in June of this year.

As I have previously noted in this blog, in that speech Obama (and I will summarize) subtly but clearly shifted the blame for the Middle East crisis from the Palestinian and Arab nations to Israel. President Obama became one of the leading “accusers” of Israel despite his verbal affirmation of the US longstanding and positive position as the protector of Israel.

In addition, after a gentle “wrist slap” for persistent Arab Moslem terrorist violence against the Jewish state, he then makes Israeli settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria his number one agenda item for resolving the Middle East crisis. His State department has consequently taken an increasingly public and hostile stance towards Israel, making Israel out in the public eye to be the “enemy” of peace in the middle East.

Even the liberal Washington Post observed:

One of the more striking results of the Obama administration’s first 6 months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed the reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel…if he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama must be tough on more than one country, or one party to the conflict.

So, over this past summer, what have been the consequences for Obama’s Cairo speech and negative shift in US relations with Israel?

Palestinian Response:

Palestinian leadership has become much more intransigent and less willing to negotiate with Israel. They simply echo Obama’s position and hide behind his measured negativity towards Israel. As Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat boldly asserts concerning PM Netanyahu’s compromise plan for limiting housing expansion in West Bank settlements, the only thing suspended by this announcement will be the peace process. This is absolutely unacceptable. The real Israeli official answer is being conducted on the ground by continuing the building of housing units and settlements.

A recent Smith Research Institute poll in Israel discovered the following:

Only 4% of Israelis believe President Obama is pro-Israel or sympathetic to Israel…down from 31% in January.

This is in stark contrast to the 88% of Israelis that believed George W. Bush was sympathetic towards Israel.

51% of Israelis believe that Obama is pro-Palestinian.

Quoting a Tom Gross Media assessment, …even many left wing Israelis rallied behind the government of Benjamin Netanyahu in his confrontation with Obama after the State Department summoned the Israeli ambassador to Washington in July and told him two families of Jews could not live in a private home, long owned by Jews, in the heart of Jerusalem, and that the Jerusalem municipal authorities should not have evicted two Palestinian families who had been squatting in the property and had not paid the Jewish owner any rent since 1985.

Since turning against Israel what has happened to his Presidency?

President Obama has gone from one who had the magic touch in politics and had unprecedented favor not only in the US but around the world to one that is in steep decline. Here is some of the evidence:

His job approval rating has plummeted from 60% positive in April to 45% in August. A record for a new President.

Just 37% of the all important independent voters still approve his job performance. 59% disapprove.

55% of voters now see the country as seriously off-track.

His healthcare plan is in serious trouble.

Many experts believe that if this downward trend continues it will signal a large turnaround at the ballot box in 2010 for the Democratic Party he represents.

This could signal a powerful erosion of his authority and ability to govern as he is now.

I will conclude with this – Isaiah 49: 25-26

In this prophetic chapter concerning the End of Days and restoration of Israel, God sounds this warning to the enemies of Israel,

Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? For thus says the Lord: even the captives of the mighty will be taken and the prey of the tyrant be rescued. For I will contend with those who contend with you (Israel) and I will save your children…Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Saviour and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Is.49:25-26)

These are the words of Osama Bin Laden and these words embody the accusation Osama Bin Laden makes against President Obama. But why?

Shouldn’t Bin Ladenbe happy that Obama seems to be coming down hard on Israel howbeit with tough love?

Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama is speaking in a conciliatory fashion towards Islam from a major Moslem Arab capital?

Shouldn’t he be happy that this President has a Moslem father and that his sympathies possibly lean towards the Moslem side of issues?

Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama attended a Moslem school in Indonesia for a few years thus potentially indoctrinating him to Islam?

Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama has promised to pull US troops out of Iraq by next summer?

There should be a lot of things that Bin Laden could be happy about so why instead does he hate President Obama and accuse him of sowing seeds of hatred?

The answer is found in President Obama’s recent courtship of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the contents of his speech.

President Obama’s Strategy Against Radical Islam

Bin Laden’s strategy for Islamic domination is to use every violent means available to defeat the Judeo-Christian west which is led by the US and impose a radical fundamentalist Moslem order on the world as a whole. Bin Laden believes that if he can destroy the Little Satan (Israel) and defeat or subjugate the Great Satan (USA) the rest of the world will fall in rapid order.

He feels that this radical Moslem agenda is threatened by what he perceives to be President Obama’s strategy which is as follows:

Force Israel (with tough love) to make peace with the Arabs by creating a Palestinian state next to Israel thus defusing and/or eliminating tensions in the region and nullifying the main unifying issue within the Moslem/Arab world (or so Obama thinks).

Create a moderate Moslem front composed of moderate Moslem/Arab countries against Bin Laden and his cronies thus making it increasingly hard for the terrorists to operate.

Bin Laden can see Obama employing the same strategy against Iran’s leadership which has the same vision for a Moslem worldwide empire.

Bin Laden has also noticed the unprecedented visits this President has made to Saudi Arabia and Egypt seeking to make this Moslem front against him a reality.

Bin Laden obviously believes that Obama has a chance of being successful thus feeling threatened.

Pressure on Israel

Now you can see why Obama is exerting so much pressure on Israel. If he cannot resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict then his chances of isolating Bin Laden and the radical Moslem terrorists are greatly diminished.

Fortunately, I believe that Obama will be unsuccessful in resolving the Palestinian state and bringing peace to their Middle East because his agenda requires a division of Israel proper and Jerusalem as the capital of both states.

Every President who has sought to accomplish this, starting with Dwight D. Eisenhower, has failed miserably despite the circumstances on the ground looking favorable.

God’s prophetic agenda is the spiritual and physical restoration of Israel. Anything working against that prophetic agenda will fail.

Stay tuned for Part IV of this series: President Obama’s stunning turnaround on Iran and its nuclear weapons.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

President Obama begins this important part of his speech by comparing Israel’s birth out of the ashes of the Holocaust to the Palestinian peoples suffering and pursuit of a homeland.

President Obama says:

…it is undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslim and Christian – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the west bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

Analysis:

First of all the “Palestinian people” have not been in pursuit of a homeland for 60 years. The Arab people that inhabited what is now Israel (and some still do live in Israel) were part of the Kingdom of Jordan. In other words they were Jordanian citizens and not pursuing a homeland. Jordan’s armies attacked Israel and were defeated in the 1948 War of Independence and again in the Six Day War of 1967. The Arab nations (Jordan included) tried to destroy Israel and were soundly defeated in both wars. That situation can in no way be compared to the incredible genocide committed against Jewish people in World War II. It was simply Arab aggression that has caused the current Palestinian suffering and displacement.

Obama, also, seems to legitimize the Palestinian refugee’s status by saying that they have waited in refugee camps for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. The Arabs waiting in refugee camps are there because their host Arab nations have chosen NOT to absorb them as Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab nations after the Arabs lost the War of Independence. It is the host Arab nations who have perpetuated the suffering of the Arab/Palestinian refugees.

Obama continues with these choice words:

They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation.

Analysis:

The humiliations, as Obama describes them, are a direct result of thousands of Arab/Palestinian bombs and terror attacks that force the Israeli government to spend untold millions to defend its borders and citizens against attack. Obama infers that this is somehow Israel’s fault and that they are being cruel taskmasters to the Palestinians when this is far from the truth.

He also characterizes Israel’s presence as occupation. This really annoys me. The rules of war are timeless and well known. If you wage a war of conquest you risk defeat and losing control of some or all of your own land and sovereignty. The spoils to the victor are great but the risk to the losers is absolute. When it comes to Israel, the rules of war do not seem to apply. Israel is the only country historically I know that when attacked, and is successful in repelling the aggressor and possessing some of the aggressors lands, is then told by the world that it must give back the land it has claimed as a spoil of war. Israel won the war. Israel has no obligation to do anything and should be commended for its graciousness as the victor. Certainly the US army, in displacing the Native Indianpeoples of North America, has felt zero obligation to restore America’s sovereignty to the Indian nations. The US has grudgingly handed over some miniscule lands but the Indians ultimately live under the watchful eyes of the US government. So much for consistency. Israel was and continues to be the victim of Arab aggression.

It gets worse. Obama continues with these words:

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

Analysis: What is troubling with this statement is that it follows his assertion that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is occupation. This leaves the listener feeling that Israel is to blame for the intolerable suffering of the Palestinian people.

Obama continues…

America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.

Analysis: It feels to the listener that Obama is blaming Israel, however subtly, for denying Palestinians a state which is properly their right. He is also, with these words, positioning himself on the world stage as a Prince Valiant, who will personally act to right this grave injustice. This is very dangerous politically. It puts Israel into the extremely uncomfortable and unfair position of hurting Obama’s international prestige if Israel disagrees with his approach to resolving the conflict. The onus should be on the aggressors…the Arabs. Instead Obama has subtly shifted the blame to Israel.

More from Obama…

Obama scolds the Palestinians and in particular Hamas and says:

Palestinians must abandon violence…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Analysis: First of all, some of these requisites are non-starters for the Arabs. What if they refuse to budge on these issues? Is Obama saying Israel is off the hook? I don’t think so. He has already shifted the blame to Israel so the responsibility to do something concrete is on Israel not the Arabs.

That is why he follows his scolding of the Palestinians with a much more concrete and harsh assertion for Israel. He says:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

He continues by requiring Israel to open its borders to Palestinian workers from Gaza and then West Bank.

…the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Analysis:

I find it extremely arrogant for Obama to tell Israel that closing its borders (and for that matter building a security fence) to ward off potential terrorist acts is “against its security interest”. The last thing Israel wants to do is spend millions building security fences and closing their borders to the cheap and vital labor pool from Gaza and the West Bank. There is only one reason Israel does this…SELF DEFENSE.

Also…Why is the onus on Israel?. My Arab cousins are the aggressors. He should be asserting that the Arabs must honor past agreements and cease their terror attacks immediately. Peace cannot move forward and Israel cannot be expected to make peace until the violence stops. He makes no such clear assertion of that truth but continues to push Israel. Why? Because he knows that the Arabs are stubborn and notorious for giving up nothing in negotiations…only Israel is willing to take steps towards peace. If he is to get the peace process going his best chance is to pressure little Israel to make indeed another concession. This is a grave injustice.

Lastly and importantly, Obama says the following:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace.

Analysis: We will soon see if his actions match his rhetoric. If Israel will not be intimidated by the President and publicly refuses to enact measures that Obama requires that will jeopardize its security and survival, what measures will Obama take to force or coerce Israel into seeing things his way? I hope none. I believe the opposite.

Conclusion

What bothers me the most is President Obama’s very public shifting of blame for the Arab/Israeli conflict to Israel. I hope I am wrong about Obama but I believe his true heart and sympathies are revealed in his carefully chosen words in Cairo.

Part III will look at His change of position concerning Iran and its nuclear program.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~